About your Search

20130313
20130321
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
on the legislation that's before us unless senator feinstein forgot what i've said. >> she hasn't. >> you haven't? >> none of us have. >> indelibly pressed. >> thank you. i think as long as i have the floor i will say what we normally say about what's on the agenda. we have the two nominees on the agenda. we have a request on our side to hold them over. so i won't have to repeat before that business up. in regard to the rest of the markup, just one sentence, well, maybe i will say a procedural thing because i know we have amendments on our side and even though i don't have anything to say on the bill further i hope we respect everybody's right to offer amendments. whoever on our side wants to do that, even beyond senator cornyn. the only thing that i want to say as i'm still amazed that after we've had two witnesses in two hearings from the justice department, we still have not received analysis from the department on the constitutionality of the legislation that we're going to be seeking today. that's all i have to say. >> we have senator schumer has joined us. senator franken and senator -- [
and senator frank stein -- feinstein. >> that they may pose a question to the leader in response to senator cornyn, you mention there's someone under pages of the bill that specify particular firearms that if this bill were passed, congress would have deemed prohibitive. it seems to me that although she began as a foundational document with the constitution. and the second amendment in the bill of rights provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. the term, the right of the people, when the framers included in the bill of rights, the same phrases found in the first amendment to the right of the people to assemble is also found in the fourth amendment to be free from at least the bull searches and seizures. the question i pose is witchy teammate consistent with the bill of rights for congress to engage in the same in ever we are contemplating doing that the second amendment in the third or fourth amendment. would she consider constitutional for congress to specify only to the following books that show not apply to congress to stand outside the protection pr
that senator feinstein and i have taken in a public release that we issued about a year ago that the claims that some make from cheney on down that the use of waterboarding led to useful information are false. those claims are not accurate. and i can only tell you we have publicly laid out our case that they're not accurate in a release that the two of us signed and issued about a year ago, and it's available on our web sites so you can kind of see it there. but what you can't see unless the cia cooperates is a very, very detailed history of the use of abusive tactics, what the administration then in power called enhanced interrogation techniques, some of which are torture under international law including waterboarding. i had a, i, frankly, had a lot of trouble with brennan when he was confirmed because he would not acknowledge that waterboarding is torture even though it is torture under international law, under geneva, according to our president. obama has said it is torture, it is. and, but to your point it's not just torture, it's not useful. it doesn't and did not produce, did not pro
the senate will debate next month. california senator dianne feinstein says instead of being included in the measure, the ban will be offered z an amendment. the ban seems to stand little chance of surviving because of expected -- defections expected from republicans, likely also defections from some moderate democrats. and now to live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask unanimous consent i be acknowledged for up to seven minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you, madam president. we -- we've been listening to our -- our good friend from kansas concerning this contract air traffic control towers. i think of all of the -- there's no better example to use than saying -- picking up a bureaucracy and taking somebody that everybody wants, that's very inexpensive and using that to try to force people to do something that shouldn't -- that -- that should never have happened. in items of the contract air traffic control towers, this is not just a -- a rural iss
of president obama and this senate -- and i have to compliment my colleague senator feinstein and my former colleague senator snowe who in a bipartisan way moved us toward fuel efficiency. and this president helped us and led the way. and we are moving up toward 50 miles per gallon fuel efficiency, and that is going to really help us. but we have to do more. we have to do more because the health costs associated with climate change are heartbreaking and expensive. taking steps to reduce carbon pollution will lower our doctors' bills. when we don't have kids wheezing and gasping for air. the evidence is clear, climate change is a public health threat. now we have moved before when we've seen threats to public health. we did it on cigarettes. i was here when the congress voted to ban smoking on airplanes. let me tell you, that was a hard vote. we had all the money of the cigarette tobacco companies against us. and i want to compliment senators lautenberg and durbin. senator durbin was in the house. senator lautenberg -- this is a long time ago. but i can tell you what it was like, because i d
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)